A Queen's Ransom
(a.k.a. International
Assassin)
(1976)
Director: Shan-Hsi Ting
Cast: Jimmy Wang Yu, Angela Mao, George Lazenby
Way back when I reviewed the movie Dillinger And Capone,
I talked a little about the use of real life figures in fiction movies.
I would like to talk a little more about the subject in this new
review. It's interesting to see how certain famous people react to
seeing themselves in a movie or a television show when they didn't give
permission for the filmmakers to use them in the movie or television
show. For example, take the case of American President Bill Clinton. Or
rather, more than one case with this famous figure. First case: In
1997, the big budget science fiction movie Contact
was released. In one scene of the movie, the filmmakers used footage of
Clinton taken from a real life press conference. Well, President
Clinton was reportedly upset about the filmmakers' actions, enough so
that the studio behind the film was sent a letter from White House
Council Charles Ruff protesting the "inappropriate" use of footage of
Clinton. On the other hand, neither Clinton nor his White House staff
protested whenever Clinton was portrayed in unflattering ways on the
animated television show The Simpsons,
including one episode when Clinton was stripped naked by aliens. I
suppose the difference was that in Contact, it
could be argued that it seemed that Clinton was "acting" in the movie,
and that he seemed more "real" in Contact than he
would in an animated cartoon. Also there is the fact that The Simpsons
is a satirical show that makes fun of everyone, so Clinton may have
been reluctant to protest since there might have been a backlash from
the pubic, a public that is accustomed to the custom of poking fun at
people in authority. No leader wants to be seen by the public as a
spoilsport.
It's also interesting to see how various people, who may
not be portrayed one way or another in a movie they watch, react to
other famous people being portrayed in movies. For example, there is
the case of Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic Roger Ebert. When he
reviewed the Richard Gere / Bruce Willis movie The Jackal,
one of his big objections was that the assassination target was a
thinly disguised Hillary Clinton. Curiously though, years earlier when
he reviewed the original Jackal movie -
which of course was The Day Of The Jackal
- he didn't make even the slightest objection that the assassination
target of that movie was an undisguised Charles de Gaulle. And years
later, when the controversial movie Death Of A President
was released - which concerned itself about the assassination of
American President George W. Bush - Ebert didn't voice any outrage or
any other kind of negative statement. The deeper that you look into
Ebert's reviews of movies involving famous figures used without
permission in feature films, the more interesting it gets. Take the
movies he has reviewed that involve Queen Elizabeth II. When he
reviewed the 2006 Helen Mirren movie The Queen,
he didn't seem to have a problem with the movie not getting permission
as well as making guesses as to what the real Queen did and said. On
the other hand, when he reviewed the 1988 comedy The Naked Gun,
while he liked the movie as a whole, he voiced somewhat of an objection
to the idea of the Queen being a target of an assassin. His exact words
were, "The wisdom of [the movie] directing an assassination attempt at
an actual public figure is questionable."
Years earlier, when Ebert reviewed the 1975 thriller Hennessy
- which was also about an assassination attempt against Queen
Elizabeth, and used real life footage of the Queen edited into the
staged scenes - Ebert also seemed to have a problem with the use of the
Queen . He stated that, "The
ethical questions raised by that footage
are complicated. I personally found the scenes of the Queen
disquieting." Knowing Ebert's feelings about the use of Queen Elizabeth
II in movies, I cannot help but wonder what he would have thought of
the movie A
Queen's Ransom had he
seen it. Like the movie Hennessy,
the movie not only concerns itself with a plot to assassinate the
Queen, it also uses real footage of the Queen mixed into the narrative.
The
difference is that A
Queen's Ransom
is a Hong Kong production. Would Ebert been more forgiving of the movie
or not because of this? It's hard to say. Personally I was more
concerned about if the movie was entertaining or not. The events of the
movie take place in modern day Hong Kong, during an especially
strenuous time for the local law enforcement. Hong Kong has recently
been flooded with a number of refugees from southeast Asia, for one
thing,
one of them a mysterious Burmese princess played by Angela Mao (Stoner).
But a more pressing problem is with a scheduled visit to Hong Kong by
Queen Elizabeth II from England. There is a feeling that the Queen's
visit might attract people wishing to do her harm. As it turns out,
there is indeed an assassination plot in the air. A group of
international terrorists has the Queen in their sights. Among the
assassins are an IRA member (Lazenby, Stoner), an
American woman (Judith Brown, The Big Doll House),
and two others played by martial arts superstar Jimmy Wang Yu (The One Armed Swordsman)
and future Hong Kong star Bolo Yeung (Shootfighter).
Can the local law enforcement protect the queen from assassination? And
what connection does the Burmese princess have in all of this?
Despite the presence of George Lazenby (as well as
Angelo Mao and Yu Wang, both of whom had previously appeared in Hong
Kong movies that had been released in the United States), A Queen's Ransom
never
had the chance to make much of an impression to the American
public. It took five years for it to find an American distributor, and
it was a
third rate one that simply dumped it under a new title in a few big
city
grindhouses. I guess it's possible that had the Queen known about this
film, she was happy with this fate if she was informed about it. But as
it turns out, she really didn't have much to get worked up about. While
the movie does concern an assassination attempt on the Queen, Her
Majesty is treated fairly tastefully. There is indeed a few instances
of stock footage used of her real life visit to Hong Kong, but except
for one brief shot in the final few minutes, the Queen is always a
considerable distance from the camera. Because the Queen remains at a
distance until the very end, there's less of a feeling of exploitation
or violation of her than you might think, even during one sequence
where the footage of the Queen is cut with footage of the assassinators
preparing their attempt to eliminate her. She comes across pretty well,
which is more than you can say for the other characters in the movie.
This includes the other non bad guy characters, particularly Angela
Mao's character. Though she receives high billing in the credits, she
doesn't get to do that much. In the first sixty minutes of the movie,
she not only hardly says a word of dialogue at all, she pretty much
sits around and lets the surrounding characters do all her work. Sure,
Mao can be pleasant eye candy in other movies, but in those other
movies she sure worked a lot harder with both acting and with fighting
to make really memorable characters.
As for the antagonist characters, they aren't that much
better developed in the script. While it's fun for a few minutes to see
these aforementioned actors all together in the same movie, it doesn't
take long for we in the audience to get utterly bored by their
characters. We learn practically nothing
about these characters' backgrounds apart from their names. Some of
them also hardly get to do a thing of real consequence; Judith Brown's
character, for one thing, only seems to be around to provide some
nudity and a couple of sex sequences. It shouldn't come as any surprise
that with such weak characters, the cast doesn't seem able to do
anything that might bring their roles to life. Take George Lazenby, for
instance. To his credit, he doesn't try to overact, and does try to
make his character cool and confident. But he ends up being too
laid back, and this results in his character seemingly bored by his
surroundings. The script simply doesn't give him or his co-stars much
to do. That is not the only problem to be found with A Queen's Ransom's
screenplay. The story seems to be as utterly disinterested as its
surrounding characters. Actually, the movie gets off to a pretty good
start, introducing the multiple characters as well as multiple plot
threads and motivations. But after this promising beginning,
writer/director Shan-Hsi Ting seems unable to continue to make the
story interesting. The story, quite frankly, moves at the pace of a
glacier. There's far too much talk, when a movie with this plot (and
this cast) should have been jammed pack with action sequences.
As you probably guessed with that last statement I
brought up, A
Queen's Ransom
is indeed sorely lacking in the action department. If I recall
correctly, in the first hour of the movie, there are only two sequences
that could be considered action sequences - barely. In fact, almost all
the action to be found in the entire movie will probably be considered
disappointing by action fans. There are two reasons for this, the first
being that most of the action sequences are over very quickly. When
Jimmy Wang Yu and Bolo Yeung get into a scrap early on in the movie,
for
example, it should have been legendary, but it's over in about thirty
seconds at the most. The second reason most of the action sequences
fall flat is that they aren't particularly well choreographed and
directed. They just come across as what you've seen before in dozens of
low budget 1970s kung fu movies. The only action sequence that has some
life is the extended action climax, which offers some acceptable
gunplay as well as some okay fights. Though even then, you can tell
this sequence could have been a lot better (Lazenby's and Mao's kung fu
duel is kind of a letdown.) While I did imply that the climax as a
whole is handled okay (barely), the rest of the direction of A Queen's Ransom
is lacking, to be charitable. The biggest problem I had with the tone
of the movie is that it is lacking a feeling of tension, a feeling that
there is a ruthless force threatening to do serious harm as the
protagonists struggle in various ways to defeat it. The movie ends up
having a tone that seems aimed at audiences who do not want to feel any
kind of thrills or a fun kind of discomfort at all. But if you hate
things like rollercoasters or trying exotic foods for the first time,
well, this movie may just fit the bill.
(Posted May 14, 2020)
Check for availability on Amazon (DVD)
See also: Drive, Sakura Killers, Stoner
|